Posts Tagged ‘florida’

Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

Living in Central Florida, the story of the death of young Caylee Anthony, allegedly at the hands of her mother, has really taken over news.  The local media loves the case and, on average, at least between five and seven minutes of every local newscast is riddled with some sort of new development.  Right now the case is in the jury selection phase and, as you can imagine, there is much difficulty in seating a jury.

I normally do not follow the local news.  I find it to be almost disturbing.  Nowadays, it is just a series of this person shot that person, there was an accident that backed up traffic today, something happened at Disney, the weather is beautiful, and sports.  That’s not interesting enough to keep my attention.  Just put ESPN on in the background, and I’m a happy camper.  The Casey Anthony fiasco, however, has caught national attention.

The case really got on my radar about two days ago, as I was getting ready for bed and the local news was on the TV as background noise.  I heard the word “trademark,” which made me look up.  Then I saw Casey Anthony’s parents on the TV and wondered what the TV anchor got wrong.  I rewound the DVR to see what I had missed and, sure enough, the TV anchor did not get it wrong.  There was a trademark issue involving Casey Anthony’s parents (a pair that have not been getting some good press either).

According to this story, the Anthony’s filed a trademark application on Caylee’s name and has sent a demand to Café Press demanding that merchandise bearing the name “Caylee” be removed from the site.  Here are the results of a search I did on the CafePress.com site.

I am not so sure that this story is accurate.  I did a search of the USPTO records to view the application and could not find any trademark application for “Justice for Caylee” anywhere.  Nor could I find any application that included the name “Caylee” as any part of it.  I also did a search of the trademark records for the State of Florida and could not find any applications pending that might relate to this poor girl’s name.

For the sake of argument, however, let’s say that the article is accurate and that the grandparents of Caylee Anthony have filed a trademark application relating to Caylee’s name.  How are they using this in commerce?  Also, what is so offensive about a group of people that would like to make a little money and, at the same time see some justice done for this child (who I believe was about four years old at the time of her death, was found in a plastic bag dumped in a swamp behind the home of the grandparents, and whose DNA was found in the trunk of her mother’s vehicle)?  I understand that this case is emotional on many different levels and, to tell you the truth, there is no particular side that I support with respect to this trademark disagreement.  The folks who are selling these t-shirts are not exactly in the right (morally), and the grandparents have no trademark rights.

This is a sad case all around, and there is no winner here.  I just can’t believe that in the middle of this entire mess, trademark law has found a way to become an issue.

 

 

Share via email

Aaron Thalwitzer

The official seal of the City of Melbourne and the "obsolete seal".

Sometimes IP news hits close to home.

For me, home is Melbourne, Florida, a beautiful, medium-sized city along Florida’s Space Coast. I have a lot of pride for my city, and so do most of its residents. One man, Eric Ellebracht, wanted to show off his pride, in the form of a tattoo of the city seal on his upper left arm. Melbourne, in a smart move, but one that led to a silly situation, has protected its rights to the seal, which can only be used on official documents.

Ellebracht, who is on the Citizens’ Advisory Board for Melbourne, is, at least in the opinion of the city manager, not an official document. According to the Florida Today, Ellebracht said, “It’s like the people who have the ‘I’m a Melbourne resident and I’m proud of it’ bumper sticker on their car. I’m just taking that to a little bit of an extreme.”

The law is the law, eh? Apparently, using the seal without the city manager’s permission can be punished with jail. But there is an element of intent involved that is not apparent, in the author’s opinion. Nevertheless, Michael Moore, Melbourne’s city spokesman believes there is no room for discussion, saying “At the code level, it’s perfectly clear what the intent of the seal is and that is not Mr. Ellebracht’s purpose”.

Melbourne has been using a seal displaying a yellow sailboat circled by a blue band with the city’s name, its nickname, “The Harbor City” and 1969 (the year it merged with its neighbor, Eau Gallie.

The odd thing is that Ellebracht asked permission to get the tattoo. Every day, people get tattoos of protected marks – Harley Davidson, anyone? I doubt many, if any, are prosecuted. What are the damages? What’s the remedy? Is it worth the ridiculous PR? Ellebracht is either a really careful man or wanted some attention.

Either way Ellebracht eventually found a mutually acceptable compromise. Using what he calls an ‘obsolete’ city seal, he had the tattoo inked in a six hour session. The design includes seven different colors, but not the word ‘city’, reports Florida Today. Apparently a copyright attorney told him that would distinguish the tattoo from the official seal.

From the Florida Today: “I think if you get a tattoo, it has to have some sort of meaning,” Ellebracht said, “This is something that has special meaning to me: my city.”

Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

You guessed it – Charlie Sheen.  The patent indicates the inventor as Carlos Irwin Estevez, which is good ol’ Charlie’s real name.  You can read about the very complicated and sophisticated invention that is disclosed in the patent here.

Patents are for Winners

The patent is directed to a “Chapstick Dispensing Apparatus.”  In my short read, it appears that this invention is directed to a device that holds a lip balm container.  Here’s the part that made me chuckle – using another company’s trademark in the title of the patent.  Chapstick is a registered trademark of Wyeth Corporation, the makers of the famous lip balm that is, apparently, an absolute necessity when living in cold dry climates…like anywhere north of here in Florida!  In my search, it appears as though Chapstick has about 19 registered trademarks and 11 others that are either in the application phase, or that have been abandoned.

Wyeth probably will not make a stink with the company that Charlie’s invention is assigned to – Masheen, Inc.  Before you ask, yes, I did a trademark search for Masheen, Inc. and there was, indeed, a trademark application filed for the name, but it is no abandoned.  Since his trademark application has gone abandoned, all of our readers should still feel free to use the word washing “machines” to describe those devices in their homes that are used to clean their clothes.

This just shows you that it takes Tiger Blood and Adonis DNA to be an inventor sometimes.

Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

While reading Gene Quinn’s recent article about his exclusive interview with Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, I learned the sad news that the Secretary was nominated to be the next ambassador of China.  Don’t get me wrong – congratulations to Secretary Locke.  He well deserves such an honor.  I can only hope that this is the just another one of the steps that he will take during his long and prosperous career serving our country.  My issue is that I hate to lose him as the Commerce Secretary.

Commerce Secretary Locke

I recommend taking a good read through Gene’s interview with the Secretary.  You will see that he has done a lot of good for the country in his short tenure as the Commerce Secretary.  Many of you already know this, but for the uninitiated, the United States Patent & Trademark Office is a part of the Department of Commerce.  As such, the Commerce Secretary has some direct influence on PTO policy.  Director Kappos, chosen by the Commerce Secretary, has taken more initiative than I have seen in quite some time to reduce the backlog at the PTO and to make things run more efficiently.  With such progressive movements coming out of Commerce, I just personally hate to see Secretary Locke go.  Not much that I can do to stop it, so I will just wish the Secretary all the best.

Share via email

By Scott Nyman

Russel Simmons, founder of Def Jam Records and creator of the Phat Farm clothing line, has shared many of his creative works with the public over the years. Recently, Simmons’ fashion company, Phat Fashions, has filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Phag Farm, Inc., a Florida corporation, alleging trademark infringement of the “Phat Farm” registered trademark.

Various “Phat Farm” trademarks currently exist on the principal register for goods and services relating to clothes, fabrics, textiles, jewelry, watches, and other fashion products. A search on the USPTO’s TESS system reveals over 50 trademarks and applications, both live and dead, relating to “Phat Farm,” some dating back as far as 1993.

Phag Farm Inc., the allegedly infringing corporation, has only been in existence since 2006 according to Florida corporate records. In that time, no trademarks have been issued for the “Phag Farm” brand. According to the Phag Farm website, the company markets their products as “pretty hot and gay.” I used to live in South Florida, an area with wide acceptance of various lifestyle choices. It does not surprise me that this story would originate from there. In fact, I know a shopping center in Wilton Manors that would probably feature the clothing line.

From the documents I have seen, it appears that Phat Fashions are suing on trademark infringement, for which they must prove the likelihood of consumer confusion. I can see how this cause of action could have legs, since there is only one letter difference between the two brands. I would bet, however, the more successful cause of action would be trademark dilution.

In a cause of action for trademark dilution the holder of a mark alleges that the unauthorized use of the mark dilutes the strength of that mark, instead of claiming likelihood of consumer confusion. Dilution may be based on “blurring,” which blurs the mark from the type of product associated thereto, or “tarnishment,” the weakening of the mark through unsavory or unflattering association. I think Phat Fashions could have a credible argument from the latter form of dilution, at least in some markets.

I’m willing to bet that many prospective customers will be able to discern between a fashion line “mixing the urban asthetics of the street and the preppy culture of the Ivy League,” (source) and a fashion line aimed at “a gay person who has street credibility.” (source )


Subscribe

Login



WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 2013

Bad Behavior has blocked 13255 access attempts in the last 7 days.